Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Captain's Log, Stardate: Unknown

Captain Kirk (William Shatner) records a log in "Dagger of the Mind"

The number of web pages and fanzine articles Star Trek fans have devoted to justifying and explaining the franchise's "stardate" system is incalculable. I won't attempt to step on their toes here; rather, I am interested in the behind-the-scenes history of the stardate system on the original Star Trek television series.

Here's the history of the stardate system according to a magazine authorized by Paramount Pictures to promote the thirtieth anniversary of the franchise in 1996:

Few Star Trek topics generate as much heated debate as the stardate system, the time calculation used by the United Federation of Planets which was introduced to the classic series by Gene Roddenberry, who borrowed the notion from the Julian date currently used by astronomers. Developed by Joseph Justus Scaliger (who named his dating system after his father, Julius Caesar Scaliger), the Julian time calculation measures the number of days elapsed since 1 Jan. 4713 BC, the date derived by Joseph Justus. In the case of the 30th anniversary of the air date for the original series (8 Sept. 1996), that's 2,450,335 days. To make it easier, astronomers only use the last five digits – making 50335 the Julian date for the Star Trek anniversary. For Star Trek, Roddenberry added a single digit after the decimal point (50335.2) to represent one of the 10 time measurements in a 24-hour period... Roddenberry borrowed the five-digit Julian date, shortening it to four digits and renaming it "stardate." Not a precise measurement of each episode’s time frame, the stardate was simply a reminder that the series was set in the future. (Star Trek 30 Years Special Collector's Edition, 1996, p.81)

Like a lot of promotional material related to Star Trek, this account gives complete credit to series creator Gene Roddenberry, but a little research suggests that the truth of the matter is more complicated.

According to biographer Joel Engel, when Roddenberry wanted a
futuristic way to measure time, he called writer Samuel Peeples. Peeples had been a consultant on 'The Menagerie'
and wrote the second pilot which sold the series:

The two men had a few drinks while brainstorming, and soon began
chuckling over their imaginative 'stardate' computations. 'We tried to set up a
system that would be unidentifiable unless you knew how we did it,' Peeples
says.

They marked off sections on a pictorial depiction of the known
universe and extrapolated how much earth time would elapse when traveling
between given points, taking into account that the Enterprise's warp engines would be violating
Einstein's theory that nothing could exceed the speed of light. They concluded
that the 'time continuum' would therefore vary from place to place, and that
earth time may actually be lost in travel. 'So the stardate on Earth would be
one thing, but the stardate on Alpha Centauri would be different,' Peeples
says. 'We thought this was hilarious, because everyone would say, 'How come
this date is before that date when this show is after that show?' The answer
was because you were in a different sector of the universe.'

Whether or not you
accept Peeple's account, one thing's for certain: the stardate system
doesn't appear in Roddenberry's final draft of 'The Menagerie' (dated November
20, 1964), nor does it appear in the finished episode. The first time the familiar dating system does appear is in Samuel Peeple's first draft of 'Where No Man Has Gone Before,'
dated May 27, 1965:

The script went through a number of revisions, first by Peeples and then by Roddenberry, but the stardate system as established in that first draft was relatively unchanged by the time the 'final draft' of the teleplay, dated July 8, 1965 (some additional revisions would occur after this date):

In the documentary adaptation of Herb Solow and Bob Justman's Inside Star Trek: The Real Story (1998), script researcher Kellam de Forest recalls:

The script originally had dates in it like 2362, and months, and days. I thought that sounded a little awkward for the twenty-third, twenty-second century, so I thought that there should be another dating system. So I checked, that, yes, astronomer's had a way of dating called [the] Julian Day System.

With respect to the plethora of contributions he and his firm made to Star Trek, in this case the passage of thirty-three years appears to have clouded Mr. de Forest's memory. After reading the first draft of the script, as well as the July 14, 1965 de Forest Research report for the episode, it's obvious that 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' never utilized a conventional dating scheme. However, the archival evidence does indicate that the Julian day system was recommended by de Forest Research (and not Roddenberry, as the magazine I quoted earlier stated). There are two comments from the de Forest Research report for the second pilot addressing the use of stardates:

(Page 2, Scene 3)

But on star
date 1312.4
– Astronomers already have adopted a
method of dating which makes possible the counting of the number of days
elapsed between widely separated observations called 'the Julian Day'.Today July 14, 1965 is 2,438,956 in Julian
days.A Julian cycle is 7,980 years, and
the Julian day measurement would be scientifically authentic.Suggest “on Julian B 1312.4”.This date would be August 5, 3271.

(Page 65, Scene 175)

C-1277.1 to
1313.7 –
We presume dates are in days, Kirk would only
be 36 daysold.For conventional dating
suggest 3235 to 3271.For Kirk’s birth
date in Julian system figure would be in millions.If desired, can be calculated.

Although de Forest Research made many script comments that were incorporated into the program, these suggestions were ignored. Roddenberry chose to stick to the stardate terminology rather than name-check the Julian day, and the confusing gravestone markings in the script can be seen on the prop in the finished episode.

Kirk's gravestone from 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'

de Forest Research would reference the Julian day in their research reports for three early first season episodes ('The Corbomite Maneuver,' 'What Are Little Girls Made of?' and 'Dagger of the Mind'), but their attempts to get stardates to match the real-life dating system were eventually abandoned. By the end of the first season, their efforts concerning stardates dealt with three issues: stardates that didn't match the numbering scheme of each season, stardates that weren't numbered sequentially within a script, and stardates that directly conflicted with other episodes. Getting stardates to be progress sequentially from episode to episode was a lost cause, since episodes were often aired out of production order. An explanation to this problem, similar to the one Samuel Peeples recalled in his interview with Joel Engel, can be found in the Star Trek Guide for potential writers:

In short, the stardate system was probably invented by Roddenberry and Peeples for use in the second pilot, not Roddenberry alone. Although the system they designed had similarities to the Julian day system, which was recommended by de Forest Research, Roddenberry was probably unaware of the real-life dating scheme, and de Forest Research's to get the series to abide by its rules were eventually dropped.

Thanks to TrekBBS user Sir Rhosis for the 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' script excerpts. His script reviews for the original series at Orion Press have been an invaluable resource and come highly recommended.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome, Readers

Welcome to Star Trek Fact Check, a blog dedicated to untangling forty-seven years of claims about the making of Star Trek. Although my focus is on the original television series, first broadcast on NBC from 1966 to 1969, I am open to tackling other entries in the Star Trek franchise.

If you enjoy reading this blog, I encourage you to use one of my affiliate links the next time you shop on Amazon.com. I’ll receive a small commission from anything purchased within twenty-four hours of clicking one of these links, whether it is the product you originally clicked on or something totally different.

My site banner was designed by Raymond Lefebvre, who generously donated his time making it. Thanks, Ray!

If I’ve overlooked something, or am just dead wrong about something else, leave a comment and let me know. I’m always on the lookout for new insight, and frequently update my posts to reflect any new information readers bring to my attention. Thanks for stopping by!